Appeal 2007-2404
Application 10/445,666
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Frislie US 5,845,340 Dec. 8, 1998
Ritchey US 5,067,174 Nov. 26, 1991
Reitz US 6,671,886 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Cheatum US 2004/0010839 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Reitz and Frislie (Answer 3).
The Examiner cites Reitz as disclosing “a face mask 10 of pliable
material (e.g. rubber) [] with openings for the eyes and nose [and] a
conventional scalp cover equivalent to a scalp cover of fabric material as
claimed[;] also note the visor member of the conventional scalp cover 14 of
Reitz and attachment material 36” (id.). The Examiner concedes that
“Reitz does not teach the attachment material permanently connecting the
scalp cover and face mask,” but cites Frislie as “teach[ing as] old the use of
stitching as an alternative to stringing for permanently connecting a scalp
cover and face mask” (id.). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary
skill would have considered it obvious “to substitute the stitching of Frislie
for the string 36 of Reitz to achieve an alternative and permanent means of
connecting the scalp cover and face mask” (id.).
Recently addressing the issue of obviousness, the United States
Supreme Court reaffirmed the conclusion “that when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013